[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070613070724.GA6146@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:07:25 +0800
From: Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Steven Pratt <slpratt@...tin.ibm.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] readahead: on-demand readahead logic
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 03:51:14PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > static unsigned long
> > > ondemand_readahead(struct address_space *mapping,
> > > struct file_ra_state *ra, struct file *filp,
> > > - struct page *page, pgoff_t offset,
> > > + bool hit_lookahead_marker, pgoff_t offset,
> >
> > Or use names like async/is_async for hit_lookahead_marker?
>
> I wasn't sure. The argument says "we've hit a marker, so do readahead
> even if doesn't look sequential.". Now, you and I know that only
> happens if it's an async readahead, but that's not really relevant to
> this function.
Yeah, it's an interface for the message "hey I hit a readahead marker".
That's the point!
> OK, here is revised patch with your changes:
>
> ====
> Split ondemand readahead interface into two functions. I think this
> makes it a little clearer for non-readahead experts (like Rusty).
>
> Internally they both call ondemand_readahead(), but the page argument
> is changed to an obvious boolean flag.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Acked-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn>
Thank you,
Fengguang
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists